Skip to comments.Why can't I own nuclear weapons? The Second Amendment guarantees it! (Vanity)
Posted on 04/16/2007 7:42:32 AM PDT by Lazamataz
click here to read article
Strawmen are what the left does best.
You’re pissed? *I* have to get rid of my nuclear hand-grenades!
Oops, guess I'd better get rid of mine...IF I had any, of course...
I have one. Got it on E-Bay. Wanna borrow it for a party?
Can we still use the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch?
As long as your nuke doesn’t have a pistol grip, it should be fine.
At the time of the revolution, people owned privateering ships with large cannon.
How would those (cannons and armed man-’o-war) figure into your above categories?
Also, I have friends and relations who still own working cannons (we fire them at 4th of July, birthdays, etc.). Apparently these should fall under the 2nd Amendment as well, because they certainly own them and have charges for them.
Sorry, I don’t buy it. There is nothing in the Constitution to prevent me from owning a nuke. At the time, probably the most destructive weapon was a cannon and private people DID own cannons. When they put these cannons on their private ships, they were called privateers.
Or a flash suppressor.
What about photon torpedoes?
Please read this article over, and try again.
Youre pissed? *I* have to get rid of my nuclear hand-grenades!
P.S. Ammendment Ammendment Ammendment Pfffffftt.
I hope that it isn’t evil looking??
If you don't agree with me, I'm detonating this nuke.
I've gotten too old for those. With my shoulder I just can't throw them far enough anymore and am not as fast as I used to be either.
I lean more towards “everything except nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons”. AA guns, artillery, battleships, tanks, claymores, RPGs, etc should all be kosher. I’d also personally like to see a revival of Letters of Marquee (the USA was smart enough to not sign the Declaration of Paris).
Only if we could be assured they did not leave the country.
In some societies a soldier was expected to arm himself and pay for his own service. Those who could do so were ‘nobles,’ and the rest were mercenaries. If an army were to be nukular-armed, the soldier himself would be expected to provide his own nuke and the horse to carry it. In our modern army the soldiers have to provide their own AA batteries and toothpaste, which are just as important as their sidearms, so by extension we might consider our modern army to still be playing under the same rules. If we have a nukular-armed army, the soldiers would be much appreciated if they muster with their own weapons provided they are compatible with state-furnished weapons.
I might have to disagree.
In the Federalist Papers there is a quote about how freedom would remain as long as the common citizen had the same access to arms as the common soldier.
So I take that to mean machine guns and rockets are in and nukes and mustard gas are out.
Where do you store your nuclear waepons?........./Chekov voice
My wife got tired of all the centrifuges in the garage so I had to settle for training a horde of suicide bomber spork weasels.
Visualize Laz with Nukes!
Now that's scary. :)
Okay, As long as it's not a Wickerman...........
Keep and ‘bear’ arms? You mean keep and carry guns? I thought it meant “bare arms” as in wear short sleeved dresses.
(You should know no one can take anything you say serious. Give it up.) ;9)
BTW I will NEVER bare arms but I will carry a gun when I feel it is needed.
I’m pretty sure you’re ok if your backyard has 10 or fewer nuclear silos. If it has more than 10, it falls under the Clinton Ban.
I’ll hide my ONTOS under the tarp. Tell everybody it’s a SUV I can’t afford the gas for........
Good Bump! Lovin' The Stalwart Freeper! Like Krazy!
Um, how far can you throw one of those? And, what's the blast radius again?
Remind me to be somewhere else when you're practicing. ;-)
In our modern army the soldiers have to provide their own AA batteries
They do? 20mm or 30mm? Anti Aircraft batteries are more expensive now that they’re radar guided you know!
If it doesn’t have an MP3 player, it’s not cool.........
“Nuclear weapons are not allowed to be used for self defense by private citizens because they are not sufficiently discriminating.”
Nuclear weapons are indiscriminate in nature. Therefore, you’re violating the 5th amendment rights of others “life, liberty and property” even by just possessing them. Example, if an accidental detonation or radiation leak where to occur, you would threaten the lives of thousands of people. The same holds true if one were to possess biological weapons. That’s where the individual safety right of others takes precedence over the 2nd amendment.
You do have a 2nd amendment right to bear arms, but that doesn’t mean you have a right to own a weapon so powerful and indiscriminate that it’s mere possession threatens me and my family.
And of course if a nuke was used for self defense, you would vaporize all innocent people within a radius of several miles.
Guns on the other hand can be controlled by owner, and are not indiscriminate in nature.
Seriously, whole countries have bankrupted themselves trying to build one, and then found out that they have a short shelf life. The same thing with a howitzer. Every time you crank one off, there goes several thousand bucks, spiraling into the blue. It's odd that the shear staggering cost of operating one of these toys never seems to be mentioned.
Consider that an MG42 rips thru 1500 rounds a minute, at, say, $0.50 each, that's $750.00, plus the cost of a stellite lined barrel you just melted. Of course, to a Socialist, the mere sound of such a horror weapon would turn them all sickly and pale...
Neither weree ships of war and those could be privately owned as well.
I cannot imagine a private citizen owning an aircraft caarrier (too expensive), but I could see them running a cruiser / yacht armed with Aegis and torpedoes.
Shipping companies could hire it out as an escort through the straits of Malacca for really valuable cargoes.
The Federalist Papers are a good way to see what the founders were thinking about but the Constitution is the law of the land.
Machine guns and machine pistols are plenty discriminating, if used properly. Aimed, full-auto fire is not oxymoronic.
The same argument is used against so-called “assault weapons” by the antis. They rail against the “spray and pray” method, which can be exercised using semi- and full-auto arms alike.
The government doesn’t have to ban a nuclear device, they can ban the fuel for it though.
that's about where I'm at too ... I just cannot imagine someone owning a privately operated carrier. That would be cool but what a resource sink.
—and kidding aside, during the gulf war , I saw a CNN correspondent seriously speak of the potential for “nuclear hand grenades”—obviously, the concept of “blast radius” had not occurred to him-—
My personal opinion is that a shotgun is not much more discriminate than an assault rifle, which isn’t much more discriminate, when on full auto, as a submachine gun.
Who gets to draw the line of acceptability?
Also, I would argue that a submachine gun is less discriminate that a mounted machine gun.
Maybe the line should be drawn at whether there is residual damage after the defense of one’s self. Unfortunately, it could then be argued that if a gun does structural damage that could cause a structure to fall, it could be outlawed as well.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.